If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Why so expensive (flight recorders)
There where other companies around, that did flight recording with GPS for quite a long time, at the time CAI promoted the flight recording for documentation in central competitions. So there was no way to patent it. That never seemed to stop an American company before! |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Why so expensive (flight recorders)
On Feb 28, 1:51 am, nimbusgb wrote:
There where other companies around, that did flight recording with GPS for quite a long time, at the time CAI promoted the flight recording for documentation in central competitions. So there was no way to patent it. That never seemed to stop an American company before! Nor a British one... http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/06/37095 :-) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Why so expensive (flight recorders) - some random thoughts
On Feb 28, 1:15*am, wrote:
Let's see: 1) IGC Flight recorders are expensive because the market is small 2) No manufacturer is making any profit, some have left the business (and their customers) 3) The market is almost saturated 4) If COTS receivers are accepted, half (or more) of the shrinking market evaporates Guess what will happen to the price of IGC approved flight recorders. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. What do you mean "unintended" :-) One of the points that I've stressed all along is that we need to work on an approach to de-risk our current reliance on what has been a cottage industry. The fact that an increasing number of people are finding an outlet for their competitive spirit in the form of the OLC is a strong indicator that the "market" will dictate where we are going. The fact that OLC pilots and competition pilots in many countries (e.g. in the US up to the national level) can already compete using COTS recorders means that they are here to stay. At the same time, there are new manufucturers of IGC-approved loggers coming on line with much greater resources (i.e. not reliant on the relatively small gliding market) who have much lower cost structures. I'm sure many people know that Cambridge has been barely limping along for years now (what was the last major product release?), and if they couldn't survive, what leads you to believe that the others are far behind? P3 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Why so expensive (flight recorders) - some random thoughts
On Feb 25, 7:47*am, "PCool" wrote:
Thanks Marc, is it correct to say that the Pressure Altitude is an altitude calculated starting from a pressure value, following a sort-of a rule as for ICAO-ISA ? I guess official IGC loggers read the exact pressure as garmins and suunto watches (!) and then they apply some calculations and name this result as "altitude". Do they do this without looking at what the GPS say?? Not even for an hint? What is the formula used by all IGC loggers for doing this, then? It's beyond my comprehension why if we are talking about pressure which is always measured in the same way (right?) then this value has different meanings and cannot be simply converted like with QNE-QNH-QFE. ICAO-ISA is sort of a more complicated QNE, right? (question!) On garmins you have a pressure sensor just like on a Colibrì, then this sensor is used to compensate the gps and vice-versa, according to the patent they have registered. By the way Marc could you understand anything useful out of it? After 4 years there are again the same questions on this matter so I guess it's not very clear to everybody (me too). thanks! Paolo "Marc Ramsey" ha scritto nel . prodigy.net... Once again, pressure altitude and GPS altitude measure two different things using the same units. *Because we like to fly when there is a non-standard temperature lapse rate, there is almost always noticeable pressure altitude error above a few thousand feet AGL. *If an optical start gate is showing the actual heights, most gliders will appear to be starting high, since the altimeters are reading low, and the validity of the start is determined from the recorded pressure altitude. *Those pilots who are recording only GPS altitude (GPS handhelds, etc.) need to be careful, as they start will be scored based on actual height, which means they have to start lower. *They need to be watching the GPS display, rather then the altimeter, when they are flirting with the top of the start cylinder. Do the experts maintain that GPS altitude is bad because (a) it DOESN'T have the errors inherent in pressure altitude or (b) because its precision isn't good enough? It seems like I've seen both positions on this forum. As you know, experts generally maintain whatever favors their position. Look at it this way, GPS altitude is more accurate at measuring actual height, pressure altitude is more accurate at measuring, well, pressure altitude. *Since one function of the flight recorder is to detect and penalize airspace incursions, pressure altitude will continue to be a consideration, no matter what else happens. *Some of the other air sports, like ballooning, have already switched over to using actual height, they use sounding data and software to convert to/from pressure altitude as needed. Marc- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I think that to a large degree, the requirement to use pressure altitude may be related to the reason the FAA insists on using it for altitude deconfliction. Pretty much every plane out there has a pressure altimeter. I wonder if the GPS altitude anomolies are related to antenna position while circling? That, IMO, would be valid. Otherwise, GPS, even relatively low end GPS yields vastly more consistant altitudes than pressure sensors. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Why so expensive (flight recorders) - some random thoughts
I saw somewhere that the IGC was meeting from the 29th to the 1st.
Have they released any ino on what was decided yet? Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Standalone Flight Recorders for Club Use | ContestID67 | Soaring | 8 | April 24th 07 01:27 AM |
Amendment 9 to the Technical Specification for IGC Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 0 | July 1st 06 06:50 PM |
IGC-approval levels for some types of Flight Recorders | Ian Strachan | Soaring | 42 | March 19th 05 05:42 PM |
Commercial - Mounts for GPS Flight Recorders | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | March 13th 04 02:03 PM |
Approved IGC Flight recorders | mat Redsell | Soaring | 2 | March 5th 04 03:35 PM |